Wednesday, February 9, 2011

What did I say yesterday? It's funny, two of the three democrats listed in the article below are true politicians. claire mccaskill and ben nelson will do or say anything to save their miserable necks. Neither of them have any morals or principals, they prove that every time they change positions with the political winds.

As this debate heats up, you can expect to see more democrats jumping on board the repeal train. Politicians remind me of a cross betweena rat and and a cock roach. They will abandon a sinking ship in a second but they will probably be the only things to survive a nuclear war...

Pretty much as expected by conservatives, Obamacare has remained unpopular with the public. It's under attack in the courts. And now, vulnerable Senate Democrats are running for the hills. ABC News reports:

"We're looking at everything humanly possible. I've always had a concern and a problem with the mandate, that we were forcing it, basically saying by the law of the land you have to buy the product," Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, told ABC News today. "But on the other hand, I know that's been the linchpin. I'm looking for flexibility any way I can."

Manchin is one of the moderate Democrats trying to figure out how to repeal the individual mandate. While talks are still in the early stages, Manchin hopes the push will take shape sooner rather than later.

Joining him in these efforts could be a handful of other Democrats who are also up for reelection in 2012: Nebraska's Ben Nelson, Missouri's Claire McCaskill, and Montana's Jon Tester.

You can understand why liberals might be starting to panic. So earnest Obamacare supporters are rushing in. Ezra Klein offers his contribution:

Replacing the individual mandate wouldn't be particularly hard. All we need is another policy that does the same thing -- specifically, discourages free-riders who don't want to buy insurance until after they get sick and thus leave the rest of us paying for them.

This is not one of the more effective spin-squad efforts. To begin with, Democrats are running from Obamacare Their willingness to push for a major revision, one vehemently opposed by the White House, of the "historic legislation" is not a helpful sign for the saleability of the plan in the 2012 election.

As for the politics, Ezra has missed a key stumbling block: House Republicans and more than 40 Senate Republicans will not vote for an individual mandate-lite, if you will. They want to repeal Obamacare outright or defund it. Remember, the Republicans are running and governing on repeal and replace. In other words, Obamacare can't be fixed in their eyes because the entire premise of the legislation and the cost it entails are unsustainable. Oh, and the president is opposed to it, too. In other words, virtually everyone save the nervous Senate Democrats is opposed to the idea of fiddling with the individual mandate.

Eventually the choice for red-state Democrats will be: Defend Obamacare as is or vote to repeal it. In the realm of electoral politics this is a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition for the Republicans.

Not only is the repeal of the individual mandate no big deal, it's actually better for the Dems! Ezra announces, "The danger, as I say at the end, is not that the law does get changed, but that it doesn't. That the GOP won't let it thrive and the Democrats won't let it die and so it just limps along." (I guess the "historic legislation" was badly crafted, after all.)

SB 3 - The act establishes identification requirements for voting. Voters shall produce a nonexpired Missouri driver's license; a nonexpired or nonexpiring Missouri nondriver's license; any identification containing a photograph issued by the Missouri National Guard, the United States armed forces, or the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; or a document issued by the United States or the state of Missouri containing the name of the voter which substantially conforms to the most recent signature in the individual's voter registration records, a photograph, and an expiration date or if expired, the expiration is after the date of the most recent general election.

Those appearing without identification who are unable to obtain one because of a physical or mental disability, an inability to pay for a document necessary to obtain the required identification, a religious belief against forms of identification or the voter was born before January 1, 1941, shall be allowed to vote a provisional ballot, provided the election authority can verify the identity of the individual by comparing the individual's signature to the signature on file with the election authority.

All voters whose identity cannot be established are allowed to cast a provisional ballot which shall not be counted unless the voter returns and provides proper identification.

All costs incurred by the election authority associated with implementing the new identification requirements shall be reimbursed from the general revenue upon appropriation.

The election authority shall provide advance notice of the identification requirements to be included in the election authorities elections notices.

The state shall provide at least one form of identification required to vote at no cost to the voter.

The act requires that provisional ballots be available for all elections except for absentee voting.

This act is contingent on the passage of a constitutional amendment establishing voter photo identification for elections.

This act is similar to SB 1014 (2006), SB 523 (2009), and HB 1966 (2010).

This would make it almost impossible for nefarious groups or individuals, like acorn, to commit voter fraud. Any thing we can do to make elections as fair as our Founding Fathers intended is a good thing. It never ceases to amaze me that people can vote without properly identifying themselves. It is the perfect scenario for corruption.

Bill Stouffer is not my Senator, but he seems to be doing a hell of a good job for those he does represent...

It seems T.L. Davis had a not so nice meeting with an irs agent today. He isn't sure why they have decided to harrass him over an issue that has been cleared up for some time. They wouldn't be trying to intimidate him would they? I mean, that sounds like something out of the Hitler play book. But then, we are talking about the most corrupt administration in the history of our Country. Go over to TL in Exile and check out the whole story, and if you speak your mind on a regular basis in public, watch your back.

I just had an intimidation meeting with my local IRS agent. He is looking to put me in jail for failure to pay Social Security Taxes for the past two years totaling some $20,000 over the period of 2008-2010. I wondered why the Social Security Administration continued to hit the Guardians of Liberty website so long after all of the other Feds had left, now I know why.

If you have a blog, and you aren't checking regularly who your visitors are, you should. It might amaze you who all is checking you out.

No, I am not spooked and I don't scare easily, but I thought the readers of this blog ought to know and maybe turn some things over in their minds. Is this because of the siege that is ongoing in DC, or does it have something to do with the article in American Thinker?

T.L., we appreciate the heads up and wish you the very best of luck while dealing with these blood sucking vampires.

Did you catch Top Shot last night? It was the first episode of season 2.

I have to tell you, the guy that considers himself the "leader" of the blue team... I can't like him already. I also think the wrong guy went home in the first elimination. The guy that survived elimination, Chris T., seems more arrogant than his skill warrants and he appears to be really disinterested.

The first challenge, with the Sharps was very cool. It would have sucked to be the first one to fire it though. I have to agree with George, Jay couldn't have made that shot twice.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Tomorrow I want to start talking a little bit about some of the lawmakers here in Missouri and some of the things they are trying to force upon us. I have been doing a little reading and I think you will be shocked at some of the bills that are in the works.

In the grand scheme of things we don't have that long until the next elections and I want to be as informed as I can be. I will share with you what I discover along the way.

I am tired of the nanny state, left wing agenda in our Country, but we have to start taking care of these things at home.

I will have a couple of interesting things for you tomorrow evening... Stay tuned...

Even with numbers like this the democrats are still fighting a repeal. 2012 is REALLY going to be ugly for obama and his crew.

The democrats should pay attention to the people of this Country, especially those who want to continue to have a career after the next election. I'm sure there are many with a d after their name who are just as disillusioned with the entire obamacare mess as the rest of us. Why do they continue to stick to the losing side? Are they afraid of obama? harry reid? I don't get it. Man up, do the right thing for our Country...

Nearly a year after the health care law was passed, most voters still favor repealing the overhaul -- by a double-digit margin, according to a new poll.

A Rasmussen Reports poll released Monday reveals most voters believe the law will increase the cost of health care, increase the federal deficit and erode the quality of care. Though the Obama administration stepped up its public defense of the law in advance of an unsuccessful repeal vote in the Senate, the numbers suggest many Americans are not accepting the administration's arguments.

The findings are similar to those in earlier Rasmussen surveys. In the latest poll, 56 percent said health care costs will go up under the law; 52 percent said quality will go down; and 58 percent said the law will increase the federal deficit -- something the Congressional Budget Office says is not the case.

Voters, however, don't have a chance to affect the health care debate until 2012. And Republicans are regrouping after their repeal bill passed the House but failed in the Senate last week. Instead, the battle plays out in the courts, as federal judges issue conflicting rulings that are almost certain to come before the Supreme Court.

The most recent ruling was issued last week by a Florida federal judge, who ruled that the individual mandate requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional and that the law itself should be voided. The Obama administration is appealing the decision.

The Rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted Feb. 4-5. It had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

obama and his thugs take a couple of different tactics on new taxes. They either try to call it something else or swear they didn't do it. Their attempt to legitimize the individual mandate is by calling it a tax. By any other name, there is no disputing that it is unConstitutional. They call it a tax until they are cornered on it, then they try to call it something else.

Continuing the Bush tax cuts is not obama lowering taxes. They try to play word games and mess with our minds. I'm sure there are a lot of liberals that agree with obama, but it doesn't make it true, it just makes them stupid.

There are threee things you can count on right now, the sun will come up, the sun will go down and if obama's lips are moving he is lying about something...

A taxpayer watchdog group is throwing a penalty flag on President Obama's assertion in a Super Bowl pre-game interview that he didn't raise taxes, claiming the president signed into law at least two dozen tax increases.

"Just 16 days into his presidency, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco -- a hike of 62 cents per pack," Americans for Tax Reform said in a press release Monday, arguing that Obama's approval of this tax hike was a violation on his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

Every day it seems like one government agency or another pays me a visit. Today is has been the department of justice, the department of homeland security and the department of transportation... so far. There have been a couple of others, but they were checking out the hotties so that's ok.

Last month I even had a visit from the executive office of the president of the United States, twice. Now I'm not saying that is was obama, but it was pretty close.

I want to think that maybe they should find something better to do with my tax dollars than sit around surfing the net, but then again, I must be doing something right if I am attracting all of this attention. My goal with this blog is to share some of the most beautiful of Gods creatures, talk a little about some firearms, brag about my fine Chevy trucks and exercise my right to express my views. If the government has such an interest in what I have to say I would be willing to do a paid speaking engagement for them, all they have to do is contact me. My email address is in my user profile.

They seem to view pages where I disagree with the policies of the socialist in chief and his gang of thugs. If they don't like or agree with my views they are more than welcome to start a discussion in the comments. But if they think that by visiting here they will somehow intimidate me, umm, no, not gonna happen.

What would be fun though, is if I had the ability with blogspot to block a range of ip addresses...

Monday, February 7, 2011

This is a story about the most corrupt and arrogant admistration in the history of our Country. If it were fiction it would be a good story. Too bad for us, it's all true. obama and his gang of thugs prove everyday that they have now respect for the law, the Constitution or this Country.

Is there anything about the Obama administration that doesn't reek of discriminatory application and enforcement of laws and the arbitrary and capricious abuse of power?

Obama's best defense against the charge that he's doing outrageous things is that to correctly accuse him of committing these actions makes one look like a kook. Viewed alone, they are quite disconcerting. Taken together, especially with levels of audacity and arrogance that would impress any tyrant, they are immensely troubling.

Obama's selective and inequitable wielding of governmental power suggests that he's on a mission to correct perceived injustices, to settle the score or to exact revenge. His attitude lends credence to this.

Everything about his governance smacks of picking winners and losers and defying accountability -- just because he can and no one is going to stop him. On the accountability point, consider that his Department of Justice didn't bother to file responsive pleadings until way past the default deadline in a major lawsuit by Missouri officials against the feds on Obamacare.

Now he's openly defied Rep. Darrell Issa's document request deadline -- sending a signal that these executive thugs can just do whatever they darn well please without consequences.

It's one thing for a branch of government to hold its own against another on a matter involving a bona fide separation of powers issue, but this case is hardly that dramatic. Issa is requesting information from Department of Homeland Security officials about alleged political interference with Freedom of Information Act requests. Adding insult and outrage to injury, Issa believes that top DHS officials instructed career employees not to search for the requested documents.

You've also doubtlessly read about the ongoing discriminatory exemptions from Obamacare the Department of Health and Human Services has granted to entities -- the number now exceeding 700, with more than 2 million enrollees -- many of which are heavy contributors to Obama's political campaign.

CNSNews.com reports that the administration gave one-year waivers to 28 separate local chapters of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, exempting them from an Obamacare requirement that bans annual limits on what insurance plans will pay for coverage. The UFCW's political action committee spent $673,309 in independent expenditures promoting Obama's 2008 election. Further, columnist Michelle Malkin reports that one-fourth of waivers have been in favor of Big Labor groups.

Do you suppose there's any possibility under the sun the administration was upfront with the Congressional Budget Office about these upcoming waivers when it submitted its data seeking a passing score on Obamacare's budgetary impact?

Then there's the matter of Obama's lawless Environmental Protection Agency's issuing global warming rules in January, which is a flagrant circumvention of the will of the people, who, through their duly elected representatives in Congress, have rejected radical environmentalist cap-and-trade legislation. As if that weren't bad enough, in February, this same EPA granted an exemption to Obama pal Jeff Immelt's General Electric for its stalled power plant project in California. If the agency is so worried about greenhouse gas emissions, why would it go out of its way to "grandfather" a plant under the old regulations?

Even the administration's new "Startup America" program, designed to help struggling small businesses with infusions of capital and other federal assistance, involves the federal bureaucracy's sticking its nose in the private sector and making itself the sugar daddy and arbiter of who gets government aid. This money bureaucrats will be doling out will be coming from other taxpayers trying to pay their own bills and meet their own needs -- all in service to the failed notion that private business can't suck its thumb or survive without federal beneficence.

None of this should surprise us, because this is the administration that selectively applies civil rights laws based on the victims' and actors' race, punishes government watchdogs for uncovering corruption of friends of the administration, crams down a restructuring of Chrysler to favor unsecured union buddies and discriminate against secured creditors, holds border enforcement hostage to Republican capitulation on its open-border demands, subsidizes clunkers, picks winners and losers in the housing market, defies federal court orders on drilling, doles out federal "stimulus" money as if it were Don Corleone's private stash, pledges $140 billion of your money to the International Monetary Fund for redistribution to Third World countries in defiance of Congress, is already attacking and thumbing its nose at the federal order (and its issuing judge) invalidating Obamacare, and selectively targets segments of the population (the rich) and industry (fat-cat banks, discriminatory insurance companies) for government mistreatment. I'm leaving so much out.

As disturbing as are this administration's bankrupting policies, its abuses and discriminatory applications of power are a very close second.

When we began to allow fringe groups to dictate the tone in this Country, we lost our Moral and Ethical way. That has been going on for a long time. I think it actually began in the '60's and got progressively worse from there.

In order for us to get back on the right path, the fringe groups are going to have to be put in their place. The numbers from the Gallup polll are very telling. Our Country is headed down the same path that the Roman empire was taking in its final days. Maybe we should start having gladiators though, that would be cool...

(CNSNews.com) - Nearly 7 out of 10 Americans say they are dissatisfied with the size and power of the federal government and with nation's moral and ethical climate, says the Gallup Poll.

Also, for the first time since Gallup started asking the question a decade ago, a majority of Americans say they are dissatisfied with our system of government and how well it works.

Back in January 2001, 68 percent of Americans told Gallup they were satisfied with our system of government and how well it works, while 30 percent said they were dissatisfied. This January, only 42 percent said they were satisfied with our system of government and how it works, while 56 percent said they were dissatisfied.

The percentage of Americans who said they were satisfied with our system of government and how it works peaked at 76 percent in January 2002—four months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

From Jan. 7-9 of this year, Gallup polled 1,018 American adults, asking them if they were very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with seven aspects of American life. These included the overall quality of life, our system of government and how well it works, the size and power of the federal government, the nation's moral and ethical climate, the opportunity for a person to get ahead by working hard, the size and influence of major corporations, and the influence of organized religion.

In response to these questions, a majority of Americans expressed a generally conservative perspective.

Overall, only 31 percent said that they were satisfied with the size and power of the federal government (with 5 percent saying they were very satisfied and 26 percent saying they were somewhat satisfied). By contrast, 67 percent said they were dissatisfied with the size and power of the federal government.

Since January 2002, there has been almost an inversion in the public opinion on this question. Back then, 60 percent said they were satisfied with the size and power of the federal government, while 39 percent said they were dissatisfied.

The greatest public dissatisfaction, however, is with the moral and ethical climate of the country. Today, 69 percent of Americans say they are dissatisfied with that climate, while 30 percent say they are satisfied.

There has been a ten-point shift on this question over the past three years. In January 2008, the last time Gallup asked the question, 59 percent of Americans said they were dissatisfied with the moral and ethical climate of the country, while 39 percent said they were satisfied.

Over the decade-long period that Gallup has asked people whether they were satisfied with the moral and ethical climate of the country, the highest level of satisfaction was registered in January 2002, when 47 percent said they were satisfied with the moral and ethical climate of the country and 52 percent said they were dissatisfied.

At no time in Gallup’s polling on the question has a majority of Americans said they were satisfied with the nation’s moral and ethical climate.

In the most recent poll, 55 percent said they were satisfied with the opportunity for a person to get ahead by working hard, while 44 percent said they were dissatisfied. Three years ago, in January 2008, when George W. Bush was still president, 68 percent said they were satisfied with the opportunity for a person to get ahead by working hard, while 31 percent said they were dissatisfied.

Only 29 percent told Gallup this January that they were satisfied with the size and influence of major corporations, while 67 percent said they were dissatisfied. Satisfaction with the size and influence of major corporations peaked in January 2002, when 50 percent said they were satisfied and 47 percent said they were not. That is the only time in 10 years of polling that public satisfaction with the size and influence of major corporations hit 50 percent.

By contrast, 58 percent of Americans told Gallup this January that they are satisfied with the influence of organized religion, while 36 percent said they were dissatisfied. Satisfaction with the influence of organized religion peaked in January 2002, when 69 percent said they were satisfied with it and 28 percent said they were not.

obama can say all day, every day that he is open to ideas, but it is bullshit. He wasn't open to ideas when the Republicans were excluded, even locked out, of the original late night, back room deals during the original obamacare debate. These Republican Governors have some good ideas. This entire obamacare experiment is way outside the realm of what the federal government should be doing. Mitch Daniels is a bad ass. He is 100% correct when he says all claims made for obamacare were false. Not just false though, outright lies. I know as a politician he can't really say that, but I can...

President Obama’s health care law -- already embroiled in fights on Capitol Hill and in federal courts across the country -- picked up a new challenge Monday when 21 Republican governors sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius outlining how they believe the law will cripple their states.

The group proposed six changes to make the law more workable. In the letter, the group says the new health care system, “is seriously flawed, favors dependency over personal responsibility, and will ultimately destroy the private insurance market.” The governors are asking for unfettered flexibility in crafting state insurance exchanges, and for waivers from the law’s “costly mandates.”

Republican Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who many predict will make a run for the White House in 2012, went a step further. He authored a piece in the Wall Street Journal in Monday that says, in reference to the new law, “all claims made for it were false.”

Daniels stands by the piece and says independent experts have verified the governors’ worst fears about what implementation of the law will mean.

“It was advertised as reducing the debt, and it's going to add to it in a dramatic way,” Daniels claims. “It was advertised as reducing health care costs, but now everyone accepts it will run them upward.”

In a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Monday, President Obama said he is open to ideas that could “improve the law.” The comment follows a Sunday interview with Fox News' Bill O’Reilly, in which the president indicated he is willing to consider Republicans’ ideas on the topic.

But the president warned, “I'm not prepared to go back to a day when the American people -- if you have got a pre-existing condition, if you had a heart attack then you can't get help.”

As the governors await a response from the administration, they are gearing up to move ahead either way. In the letter they asked Sebelius to endorse their suggestions, but they noted, “If you do not agree, we will move forward with our own efforts regardless and HHS should be making plans to run exchanges under its own auspices.”

Daniels hopes the administration will truly consider the ideas laid out in the governors’ letter. He says the economic impact on states forced to implement the changes mandated by the health care law could be devastating, and may wind up costing millions of Americans their health care coverage. “We governors have to live in the real world,” Daniels said. “Only in Washington can you bet on a miracle.”